You're setting up a false dichotomy. DRM isn't required for game developers to get paid. It's not "DRM or developers don't get paid". Games sell even without an

You're setting up a false dichotomy. DRM isn't required for game developers to get paid. It's not "DRM or developers don't get paid". Games sell even without any kind of copy prevention mechanism. If you are worried, you can still use Kickstarter (or grant) model. In that model, it's irrelevant if the game is copied out of control after release. Devs have already been paid. In my opinion Kickstarter (or grant) model is infinitely better, because it doesn't insist on treating a game like a physical object. The "selling software" model is horribly flawed. Writing software is like research - a big cost and effort once, then very little cost to benefit from it. It is fair to have effort of research/software development proportional to reward the researchers/devs are getting. With "selling software/drugs" it's not proportional.